As far as online meltdowns go, the one currently being experienced by Unrepentant Old Hippie's JJ is certainly one for the ages.
As it stands at the current moment, JJ just can't seem to keep her story straight. If one were to believe what she'd like people to believe, one would think that JJ is in favour of the abolition of all abortion laws, anywhere. She's claimed as much.
But for those paying close enough attention to JJ and her furious flag-waving in favour of the pro-abortion movement (she refers to it as "pro-choice", yet stridently opposes protecting a doctor's right to choose to refuse to perform an abortion they deem unethical) will notice that JJ isn't being quite as forthcoming with her agenda as she'd like people to believe.
Recent slips on her part have revealed precisely how much of that agenda she's tried to keep hidden.
The most recent big slip on JJ's part is her pledged support for the freedom of choice act, a piece of American legislation that would protect a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability, and protect her right to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability in cases of medical necessity.
This would naturally seem to contradict JJ's publicly-stated "the only good abortion law is no abortion law" position. After all, passing FOCA would be putting in place an abortion law -- even though one of JJ's equally-intellectually dishonest cohorts somehow thinks passing an abortion law somehow moves the United States in the direction of no abortion law -- however this makes sense is probably understood by Mike alone.
JJ insists that it's all about the context, insisting that she's only in favour of FOCA because it would be "an improvement" on the status quo in the United States:
"Of course I support FOCA, in the context of what is happening to abortion access in the US right now. (I shouldn't have to add that qualifier since it should be obvious to anyone with half a brain, but there it is for the cerebrally-deprived.) FOCA is protective legislation that would put a stop to all the nitpicking legal challenges and stupid ballot initiatives currently being used to attack abortion rights.Certainly, JJ would probably like to have people believe this.
I never said FOCA wasn't flawed legislation, and Mike is correct when he says FOCA is wrong in some ways. But in the context of the status quo in the USA, it's an improvement. Thus my support for it. OBVIOUSLY the situation in Canada (no law) is far superior."
But then there's the matter of JJ's support for not only passing an abortion law in Canada, but one that would entrench abortion rights in the highest law in the land, to the direct detriment of the rights of doctors.
It's clear that JJ is anything but opposed to the idea of an abortion law. She just wants one where her beloved pro-abortion lobby is holding all of the cards.
One really can't help but wonder: why is it really that JJ is in favour of legislation like FOCA in the United States, but not in Canada? Why is it that, for Canada, she would oppose legislation that would protect a woman's right to choose to have an abortion? Why is it that JJ and Mike would denounce FOCA as a bad bill because it regulates something that, according to their insistence, couldn't harm a woman's right to choose (seeing as how they insist that medically unnecessary late-term abortions don't happen in Canada)?
There's something missing in all of this: the same thing that has been missing all along. The truth.
They say they're opposed to abortion laws, then back ideas that would entrench abortion rights in the highest law of the land. They say they're opposed to abortion laws, then support them in foreign countries.
Either they just can't be consistent with their position, or just won't be honest about what their agenda really is.
Honestly I think people like that give the "pro-choicers" an even worse name...
ReplyDeleteI can't for either of JJ or Mike but as far as I'm concerned pro-choice means just that. I'm for choice.
The woman's right to choose, the doctor's right to choose.
I can't argue in facts or figures because to be honest, I don't know them. I just know how I feel about the issue. But again, that feeling is mine and I would never seek to force a doctor that was unwilling to perform a procedure which he/she felt went against his/her core values. That's just wrong...
It's just my two cents...
Sadly, Muchacho, these people duck out the back door whenever people challenge them on facts. Mike (whose blog is ironically entitled "rational reasons") is the absolute worst person for this.
ReplyDeleteThey try to promote themselves as seasoned debaters who refuse to debate.
I think the most hilarious bad faith argument that JJ peddles in is that she doesn't want to debate. Every so often she gets bold and tells anyone who disagrees with her to "bring it". Then she tells you "go debate the people at Bread n' Roses".
I was reminded of it tonight when I went to see PZ Myers debate whether or not god exists. He dismissed the agreed premise of the debate and proceeded to lecture about HOX genes. Then when later asked why he didn't debate the agreed topic, he explained that it wasn't his area of expertise and that they should've gotten someone else.
But if that's the case, why did he bother to come? Why did he agree to the topic of debate? He knew what this was about.
Same thing with JJ. She knew what the debate was about. And as someone who prides herself at screaming "gotcha!" every time some says something she thinks lets an anti-abortion agenda slip, she can't be too outraged that her own comments would be used against her.
What did she expect? I'm not sure I totally understand.